Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Didn't like any of those. I just dropped the _t. >> I also prefer just dropping any suffix. >> Btw, is the "compatibility types" section really needed? The reason for >> the 3.0 branch was that we wanted to drop old compatibility code... > > The problem is that we need to have source compatibility.
We don't have that since we are removing some internal structs.. > If we force everyone to update their programs just to use 3.0 then > adoption will be slow. Having a define of the old type to the new name > is not much of an issue. I agree, although I think it will take a long time (if ever) for people to modify their applications to use the new types, so we could also live with the old type names in the asn1* namespace and people won't have to update their code. I wish there were a attribute(__deprecated__) or similar that worked for types, that could be a better compromise solution. /Simon
